MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1547179514

Does Parent or Child Know Best? an Assessment of Parent/Child Agreement in the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth

2002· preprint· en· W1547179514 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laurie Curtis, Martin Dooley, Shelley Phipps

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2002
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Set (abstract data type)AgreementNational Longitudinal SurveysMultivariate analysisMultivariate statisticsDevelopmental psychologyLongitudinal dataSurvey data collectionLongitudinal studyChild Well-BeingPolitical scienceDemographic economicsDemographySociologyStatisticsEconomicsMathematicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use data from the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth to address two questions. To what extent do parents and children agree when asked identical questions about child well-being? To what extent do differences in their responses affect what one infers from multivariate analysis of the data? The correspondence between parent and child in the assessment of child well-being is only slight to fair. Agreement is stronger for more observable outcomes, such as schooling performance, and weaker for less observable outcomes, such as emotional disorders. We regress both sets of responses on a standard set of socio-economic characteristics. We also conduct formal and informal tests of the differences in what one would infer from these two sets of regressions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesFrench-language works237,207